Page One header image 1

Rand Paul Made Same Racial Comments in 2002

May 20th, 2010 · 68 Comments

Rand Paul’s appearance last evening on Rachel Maddow wasn’t the first time he made comments about racial discrimination.

In a May 30, 2002 letter to the editor of the Bowling Green Daily News about the Federal Fair Housing Act, Rand Paul made his beliefs about legalized discrimination quite clear.

Here are some excerpts from his letter headlined “Distinction blurred between private, public property”:

A recent Daily News editorial supported the Federal Fair Housing Act. At first glance, who could object to preventing discrimination in housing? Most citizens would agree that it is wrong to deny taxpayer-financed, “public” housing to anyone based on the color of their skin or the number of children in the household.

But the Daily News ignores, as does the Fair Housing Act, the distinction between private and public property. Should it be prohibited for public, taxpayer-financed institutions such as schools to reject someone based on an individual’s beliefs or attributes? Most certainly. Should it be prohibited for private entities such as a church, bed and breakfast or retirement neighborhood that doesn’t want noisy children? Absolutely not.

Decisions concerning private property and associations should in a free society be unhindered. As a consequence, some associations will discriminate.

-SNIP-

A free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination – even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin.

He’s on the record being in support of the right of individuals and businesses to openly discriminate against people – and violate their basic human rights.

P.S. Welcome to new readers from Washington Post, Political Wire, MyDD, CNN, and Politico. I may be classified as “left-leaning,” but am an equal opportunity hack. All jokes aside, glad to have you poking around here in the great Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Tags: Discrimination · Flashback · Hypocrisy · Rand Paul · Senate

68 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Mike // May 20, 2010 at 4:06 pm

    I can choose to associate with anyone I want, just as I can choose not to, for whatever reason. I believe the point Dr Paul was trying to make, both in ’02 & yesterday, is that in our private lives, we have the right to freedom of association. That includes private businesses. Dr Paul isn’t condoning discrimination, just the “basic human right” to freedom of association.

  • 2 Belknap Banquo // May 20, 2010 at 4:14 pm

    Jake, if Fred Phelps’ band of fucktards showed up asking for service at a gay owned restaurant/ bar, I’d support that place’s right to throw them out on their bony asses. What I’d really do is say..come on in and take a load off, Okies. You’re going to love our Double Yellow beer and the special sauce on our burgers is to die for.

  • 3 Steve Magruder // May 20, 2010 at 4:15 pm

    And Dr. Paul would be grossly wrong in that presentation.

    There is a clear difference between private home life and private business, which really isn’t entirely private, as it conducts business with the public.

  • 4 CriticalThinker // May 20, 2010 at 4:18 pm

    We all understand Paul’s point. He claims not to be a racist while supporting the rights of others to be so disposed. The problem with that argument is in its broadness.

    Yes, people have the right to be racists and homophobes. They have an absolute right to air their views. However, they do not have a right to EFFECT their racism or homophobia. Would we really want a society where a private bus company could force black passengers to the back of the vehicle? How about the “White Christian Heterosexual” private hospital? How about the department store that will not hire Jews – or won’t promote them on merit?

    It is NOT sufficient for Paul to say that he disagrees with discrimination. As a would-be politician – indeed, as a member of a free society – he has an obligation to support measures that prevent discrimination to occur in the first place.

    Paul has already compromised his libertarian views by opposing reproductive choice. He has also spouted the “Christian nation” nonsense which is antithetical to libertarians.

    Crackpot or purist?

  • 5 Steve Magruder // May 20, 2010 at 4:29 pm

    CT, Rand Paul is like almost every other politician — he will say what he thinks he needs to say to get elected, and he is under the impression that he can:

    1) Present the banner of “liberty” as if he understands it better than anyone else (he doesn’t);

    2) Pretend that his views are all about “restoring liberty” even while not even explaining what that silly nonsense means (it’s code words for something – guess what?)

    3) Go off the clear track of liberty on the issues that core Republicans care about and not get called on it by libertarian purists.

    I think that no matter where Rand Paul turns, his foot will be dragging his mouth.

  • 6 Belknap Banquo // May 20, 2010 at 4:33 pm

    Steve Magruder, you run a business, so should you be forced to do anything for any person or group with a check in their hand? Excepting legally protected classes as currently exist in law. Would you accept being forced by state compulsion to take Phelps’ check and perform a service for a man who wishes you dead because of who you are sexually?

  • 7 TallGuy // May 20, 2010 at 4:40 pm

    What’s needed here is, once again, the definition of capitalism, which has Nothing to do with race.

    Would we really want a society where a private bus company could force black passengers to the back of the vehicle?

    That bus company would lose much money, so much that its bottom line would “force” it to offer rides to everyone.

    How about the “White Christian Heterosexual” private hospital?

    If the WCHPH can stay profitable excluding a large majority of mankind, then so be it. The statistics tell otherwise. They will accept all to BE profitable.

    How about the department store that will not hire Jews – or won’t promote them on merit?

    Same argument isn’t it? Exclude a certain % of society and you probably won’t make it to profitability.

  • 8 starrymessenger // May 20, 2010 at 4:44 pm

    Jake, WaPo reader as in d.c are here, now???
    not just N.E people or a few california people?
    your views have proverbial quotable “legs’…??

  • 9 Third Eye Open // May 20, 2010 at 4:46 pm

    Tallguy; “…Exclude a certain % of society and you probably won’t make it to profitability.”

    Woolworth’s ca. 1950′s would disagree…

  • 10 Steve Magruder // May 20, 2010 at 4:48 pm

    BB, as long as my reasons for refusing business have nothing to do with discrimination, of course. But indeed, it would be bad to refuse business just for the heck of it, as that idea goes against the concept of commerce.

    The bottom line is that we cannot have a policy of discriminating protected classes because of some notion of “freedom of association”.

  • 11 starrymessenger // May 20, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    oops — need rEVOLUTIONARy specs

    readers, the plural of reader… like this all

    is being noticed in d.c — okay! one more tyme!

    we do know mitch mcconnell and jack conway

    are 1005 straight and most likely they both

    are really loathe to discriminate agsainst the

    people who are gay, and to LIE about one of

    mitch mcconnell’s rather puzzling judgement

    calls is not cool. it looks homophobic. it was

    also immature of me to ask Jake if he was aware

    of any “bimbo eruption’ scandal bubbling up

    around jack conway. even though i felt it could

    be quite a story and this is on the heels of the

    Lt. Governor slamming a certain A.G with the

    more stupid rumor that is totally wrong anyway…

  • 12 starrymessenger // May 20, 2010 at 4:51 pm

    1005 = 100%

    mis-spelt

    against…

  • 13 Jen // May 20, 2010 at 4:53 pm

    Who cares?
    The entire left/progressive sphere is anti-white.

  • 14 starrymessenger // May 20, 2010 at 4:53 pm

    i am typing like a 1960s era goldwaterite…

  • 15 starrymessenger // May 20, 2010 at 4:54 pm

    technically rand just repeated his 2oo2 comments!

  • 16 starrymessenger // May 20, 2010 at 4:58 pm

    mitch mcconnell is 100% straight, he will
    soon ask some “don’t ask don’t tell’ questions
    and ms. kagan gets to answer the same, and
    the reform bill looms because scott brown
    voted two ways on the same! rand will be on
    MEET THE PRESS and this is “move over
    scott brown” as we debate a B+W capra flic!
    phase two, the non-hack who goes to d.c is…

  • 17 Belknap Banquo // May 20, 2010 at 5:07 pm

    No starrymessenger, you’re typing like ee cummings in a fucking loony bin. Does Dr. Kevorkian pay you by the piece or flat-rate.

  • 18 CriticalThinker // May 20, 2010 at 5:09 pm

    The free market solution to discrimination is libertarian drivel. It leads us back to “separate but equal” facilities and services.

    Paul is a crackpot. He seems to be a truther and he has a “one world order” resistance fetish. He is also simplistic and doesn’t understand the ramifications of some of his propositions like eliminating the Fed or the Department of Ed. Most of his positions are based on fringe conspiracy theories.

  • 19 Chip // May 20, 2010 at 5:09 pm

    Why the -SNIP- ? Put out the FULL story for people to read.

  • 20 Third Eye Open // May 20, 2010 at 5:29 pm

    Jen;

    Quit being so hyperbolic. The left just hates you, and if you happen to be white, then that is just a bonus. Sleep well ;-)

  • 21 Jonesy // May 20, 2010 at 5:31 pm

    Any free society must uphold for all businesses and organizations to serve everyone, despite race, creed, color, religion or disability…
    The “market” is not the ruler of the land, its the people; the ones who don’t have a say against the majority rule. A true Democracy protects everyone, even the ones we dont like…
    That is why we formed a government, ideally run by wise men and women to look after the broader goals of people…

  • 22 jake // May 20, 2010 at 5:34 pm

    Chip: Copyright.

    Email me privately and I’ll send you the entire article.

  • 23 starrymessenger // May 20, 2010 at 5:50 pm

    Jake should write a book about this
    election year… things are getting
    more intense. someone found
    ancient footage of senator byrd
    and what he said as LBJ gets CRA
    thru the senate may now have “legs”

    belknap banquo, Jake might include
    include a few of our brainfreezes in
    such an informative book, methinks!
    i said this was going to be an election
    worthy of poor hunter s. thompson
    even though he is not here right now…

  • 24 Daniel // May 20, 2010 at 6:16 pm

    And those of us from DailyKos.

    Can private contractors working on public works projects, defense, space, also discriminate against workers? They are being “subsidized” by taxpayer $, but they can still discriminate?

    Can private colleges receiving state Pell Grants in Texas, or federal grants and loans, discriminate against student applicants?

    Where does it stop? Can a private EMT ambulance service, contracting with a city, discrmininate against what casulties they transport?

    If Ron Paul agress with those behaviors, then I say NO PUBLIC FUNDS FOR ANY PRIVATE COMPANIES WHO DISCRIMINATE. Now let the Halliburtons, Lookheads, Boeings, and all other private companies doing business with govt entities, taking their taxpayer monies, dea with that. That means NO BAIL OUTS of private banks either.

    Let those companies go bankrupt and see how their stockholders feel about discrimination then.

    Anti-discrimination statutes level a tilted playing field that has historically been against minority groups. That’s all.

  • 25 jb // May 20, 2010 at 6:41 pm

    What about the local law enforcement and firemen from the same community who pay the taxes and are discriminated against by the private business? I guess the said business can be burgled or let to burn down if it chooses to discriminate.

  • 26 FallGuy // May 20, 2010 at 7:05 pm

    TallGuy, the Masters Tournament bans women from playing and while it suffers from many clucked tongues, it is quite profitable. The idea that the forces of free enterprise will stop discrimination on the grounds that it is unprofitable is bogus.

    The only reason the White-only bus wouldn’t be profitable is poor people ride the bus. Offer a white-only airline, and now you’re talking big bucks.

  • 27 Dodger Dave // May 20, 2010 at 7:17 pm

    the commerce clause,the equal protection clause,along with the supremacy clause of the usa constitution -among other things,including common decency,and our desire as,you know,the leader of the “free world”,to distance ourselves from the stench of segregation ,all contributed to the arguments for the civil rights legislation which finally ended jim crow.
    by the time the second world war finally ended most decent people were sick and tired of bigotry,scapegoating,racism,and all the rest of it-furthermore the cold war required that at the very least,we shed the de jure segregation.
    this isn’t even a close call -dr.paul has stepped in a steaming pile of stink-and he knows it-for the antidote to dr.paul’s hubris,check john harlan’s dissent in plessy v ferguson -the scotus dec which established the legal basis for jim crow accommodations in the first place-harlan was from danville ky and his family had actually owned slaves.plessy has been overturned,by dr.paul fights on,huh? eye doc,i understand.

  • 28 Lisa Graas // May 20, 2010 at 7:19 pm

    Wow, well, I knew we would hear even more than we’d already heard during the primary………and I somehow suspect there is more to come.

    Did you see my ‘unity post’ for the Republican ‘unity rally’?
    http://genuinegopmom.blogspot.com/2010/05/my-unity-post.html

  • 29 Lisa Graas // May 20, 2010 at 7:22 pm

    jb, are you the same jb who said over at Dan Riehl’s blog that it’s basically just tough luck if a wheelchair-bound person urinates on himself because his chair won’t fit in the stall?

  • 30 MindBoggling // May 20, 2010 at 7:23 pm

    OMG I cannot believe Rand Paul. How can anyone think it’s acceptable to discriminate against another human being, no matter what the situation, private or business? Worse, I cannot believe this man was just nominated to serve us in the U.S. Senate – scary. Let’s PRAY he does not prevail.

    There is no justification for discrimination – period.

  • 31 Davi // May 20, 2010 at 7:56 pm

    If the population keeps going as it is, it is the white population which will be the minority.

    And can’t we all see how uncivil and how unruly society would become if private businesses were allowed to turn away certain segments? We’d have to have an extra large police force.

    I can see the signs in the windows of establishments now: “no gays unless we can’t tell”, “no blacks except not-so-black ok”, ” no women allowed except for young and blond”, “no fat people unless very rich”, “KKK members only”…the possibilities are limitless.

  • 32 Bob // May 20, 2010 at 8:36 pm

    CNN picked it up too…

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/20/paul-in-2002-a-free-society-must-allow-private-discrimination/?fbid=fMTIQy1RV4M

  • 33 Dodger Dave // May 20, 2010 at 8:59 pm

    by the way,lest anyone doubt for a moment what dr paul is really defending when he expresses grave concerns with the operative parts of any of our civil rights legislation,THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY HAD EXTENSIVE INPUT IN CONSTRUCTING THOSE STATUTES.furthermore,what minimal teeth our civil rights bills have stem from the legal doctrine that there can be “no rights without remedies.”finally,i don’t think dr paul would consider exchanging his “white privilege”,in exchange for the “special “privileges afforded by the civil rights acts.if the dr and his ilk were to seriously attempt to roll back this array of laws,they would be strenuously opposed by the most powerful institutions in our society -religious,military,academia,legal,”bidiz” etc-it doesn’t take boston blackie,or chollie chan to figure out whats left-so he’s an eye doctor,huh?

  • 34 Matt // May 20, 2010 at 10:17 pm

    We need to force black restaurant owners to serve KKK members

  • 35 Eclectic Infidel // May 20, 2010 at 10:31 pm

    Jen, dearest Jen, us liberals aren’t anti-white, we’re just anti-YOU. People, such as yourself, unable to see beyond the stereotypes, incapable of experiencing the nuances that this beautiful world has to offer. Do you need a hug Jen?

  • 36 RealMcCoy // May 20, 2010 at 10:43 pm

    Well, well, well! Looks like the Paulers have a bit of a sticky wicket here. Already MSNBC, in the form of Keith O., has suggested that Paul’s “career” is over. Gosh, after a whole 48 hours, too! Keith has an RNC spokesman quoted as saying that lthough Paul cannot be replaced he is certainly able to resign.
    The long knives are coming out in full form. Paul will not last until November. This Senate seat is, for all intents and purposes, going to be Democratic.

  • 37 Lisa Graas // May 20, 2010 at 10:43 pm

    Matt, *urp*. Get a clue.

  • 38 jake // May 20, 2010 at 10:47 pm

    I don’t see anything wrong with non-whites serving KKK members. If they’re a paying customer and aren’t telling the non-whites they’re going to burn them to death or whatever.

    I do have a problem with is someone telling someone I love they can’t be served because they’re non-white.

  • 39 Lisa Graas // May 21, 2010 at 12:04 am

    Jake, I agree. It sounds as though Matt offered that to somehow defend Rand Paul.

    Anyway, I just read this part:
    “Rand Paul does not support the repeal of civil rights law, but as I’ve reported here, he does support the right to discriminate on the basis of race.”

    What I do not get is how quick people are to accept the most ludicrous of claims and believe somehow that they make sense. What is up with this state of denial so many in the Paul camp are experiencing? It’s weird. I asked Trey Grayson about this during the campaign and he just shrugged. He couldn’t explain it to me, either.

  • 40 Lisa Graas // May 21, 2010 at 12:10 am

    I think I see what you’re saying now. You’re saying he doesn’t support “repeal” whereas Conway says he does. Yes, I agree with you on that technical point, but still………I think he said he doesn’t support repeal for political expediency.

  • 41 Magic Dog // May 21, 2010 at 7:54 am

    I am old enough to have heard all of the Southern excuses for racism in their original form. Rand Paul is merely recycling them in a blander form. If Kentucky elects him to the Senate, we will all know what Kentucky stands for.

  • 42 kilowat // May 21, 2010 at 8:33 am

    Conway 226,773,

    Mongiardo 221,269,

    Paul 206,159,

    Grayson 124,238,

    vote totals don’t show what the polls are claiming even Mongiardo # beat Paul’s

  • 43 wondering // May 21, 2010 at 8:35 am

    Paul has already compromised his libertarian views by opposing reproductive choice.

    Keep in mind that a large number of people sincerely believe the issue is not “reproductive choice” but “the murder of an innocent, defenseless baby.”

    The child being aborted doesn’t have much of a choice, does it?

  • 44 Davi // May 21, 2010 at 8:50 am

    Magic Dog: you hit the nail on the head.

    Dr. Paul is either extremely dumb and should stick to doctoring (?) or he is extremely hateful and perhaps a bit of a sociopath with no regard for others’ rights.

    It is a mystery that he expects to be a leader in the great US Congress–one nation, indivisible…freedom and justice for ALL?

  • 45 Larry West // May 21, 2010 at 9:06 am

    I think all Rand Paul was trying to say was that the Civil Rights Act should not have been done on a federal level, as it is not one of the “enumerated powers” granted to the federal government under the 10th amendment. He has NOT said that it was wrong on a state level to enact such legislation. Like discrimination, murder is wrong, but it is not illegal on the federal level (except on federal property) — it is covered by state law and the penalty meted out by the state — with some states meting it out with the death penalty and others deciding not to.

    I think Paul was saying was that we have too much of the heavy hand of the federal government on things, such as how to run your business. He is right, but he fell into Maddow’s trap when discussing how that would be applied. He is saying that public pressure should be used – he’s talking boycotts – and most have been successful. Cracker Barrel no longer discriminates against blacks, Old Navy actually used the word “Christmas” in an advertisement, Woolworth’s no longer exists, etc.

    Note to Davi: we do have the “no women except young and blond” out there – try applying to Hooter’s if you are an old or non-skinny woman. That discrimination is one reason why I am boycotting them. If enough do so, they will either change their policy or go out of business.

  • 46 Pat Riot // May 21, 2010 at 9:27 am

    Just because a home/business is private, does not mean you have the freedom to do whatever you want.

    I am a HUGE proponent of the right of private citizens to do whatever they please, especially in a private dwelling, as long as it is between consenting adults and no harm is done to anyone else. That includes things like sexual preferences, drug use, seatbelts, helmet laws, etc. etc.

    But, its the “no harm done to anyone else” part that is important. For example, we should be able to rape or murder someone, as long as it is in a private home or business. Rape and murder harm other people, and therefore it is against the law.

    So, unless you want to argue that discrimination does not harm anyone, or that things like rape and murder should be allowed in a private home/business, I don’t see how you can argue that discrimination should be legal in a private dwelling.

  • 47 Pat Riot // May 21, 2010 at 9:28 am

    i (hopefully) obviously meant to say in my post above that we “should’NT” be able to rape or murder as long as its in our private homes.

  • 48 Smirn from D.C. // May 21, 2010 at 10:10 am

    Thanks for posting this story and, in particular, excerpts from Paul’s 2002 letter to the editor. I had heard about Paul’s “right to private discrimination” beliefs about two weeks ago but was suprised it didn’t get much coverage during the primary in the national and local media outlets. This morning’s coverage focused on yesterday’s interviews but failed to provide the context you have, so I went on-line to research the matter and found your site. I would like to say that some of the comments posted in response to this article are peculiar to Kentucky (because it would make me feel better about our country if this was localized to one state) but I know better. The Tea Party and wannabe leaders of it like Paul want to cloak their racial hatred/White supremacist/Christian dominance views under the pretenses of reducing the national debt and limiting the reach of the federal government. Moderates, independents, progressives, and even ultra-liberals are not “anit-White” they’re just thoroughly disgusted by the religious and racial intolerance demonstrated by the Tea Party and similar fringe groups. Rand Paul’s real views are being exposed, will continue to be exposed during the campaign, and ultimately will be his political downfall. That’s a good thing for everyone, not just those living in Kentucky.

  • 49 Davi // May 21, 2010 at 10:58 am

    I keep going to the “little bit pregnant” concept.
    Rand seems to think it possible to keep the Civil Rights Act, yet allow certain people (for the most part that would be privately owned or run establishments–the monied set) to discriminate all they want.

    When Mitch, Grayson and whomever meet with him tomorrow, it’s going to be like putting “lipstick on a pig”, and should be very interesting.

    In the end, I think Paul will have to withdraw from the race.

    note to Larry West: never been to a Hooters so guess I’m boycotting as well; must be a den of good-ole-boys and young women with little self-respect (or the smarts to make lots of $$ off those gobs) In either case, they deserve each other.

  • 50 Smirn from D.C. // May 21, 2010 at 11:34 am

    Davi, Rand Paul withdrawing from the race is wishful thinking but I think it’s highly unlikely that’s going to happen. It is much more likely that Paul will continue to back-peddle publicly from his untenable position on the private right to discriminate while simultaneously nodding and winking at those among his supporters who would like to return the country to it’s segregationist past. I would expect a lot of spin and claims of righteous indignation that Paul is being attacked simply because he “speaks truth to power” or some such nonesense. If you’re a Democrat having Paul continue in the race is the best thing that can happen; if you’re a Repulican it’s a total nightmare.

  • 51 starrymessenger // May 21, 2010 at 11:48 am

    Lisa Graas! Any chance of a

    Bill Johnson/ Trey Grayson

    governor’s mansion dynamic duo

    ticket concerning a 2011 run??

    i know this is too early to ask!

  • 52 starrymessenger // May 21, 2010 at 11:52 am

    the RANSDSLIDE i think has Trey
    being where Lt. Dan just was, for young
    WILLIAM JOHNSON has an equal
    exposure to Sec’ of State Tre, and
    given that there were ACCURATE
    voter totals, we must assume that at
    least on ONE day of the year Trey
    earned HIS salary in full!!! methinks!

  • 53 starrymessenger // May 21, 2010 at 11:53 am

    i need a pair of rEVOLUTIOn
    spectacles, and now i must
    patiently wait for my own
    franklin-esque bi-focals!
    RANDSLIDE as a word
    didst not spring from
    hannity’s lips i hear!

  • 54 starrymessenger // May 21, 2010 at 11:54 am

    trey grayson in 2011 for Lt. gov!

  • 55 Emjay // May 21, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    Davi, I also wish that Dr. Paul would just withdraw. But it’s not going to happen. In fact I think he’ll win Kentucky. He can seal the deal by waiving a rebel flag and talking about the right of individuals to wear the stars and bars. This whole thing will get him more votes than take any away.

    The benefit is that he will kill the Republican party in other states. People in Cali, Conn, and other races need to plaster the airwaves with his comments. He may win the Kentucky seat, but he can be used to bleed the repubelickens dry.

  • 56 Justin Sane // May 21, 2010 at 6:39 pm

    While I completly stand behind an individual’s right to harbor hatred and descrimination towards others (it’s an American tradition unfortunately), a private business relies on the public sector to exist.

    Where do they get their electricity from, their water, or the roads that lead their patrons to their front door? If they get robbed, or have a fire? They rely on public agencies day in and day out. So to attempt this dishonest word game surrounding public vs private business from having the right to discriminate is an intellectual joke, which is what he is basing his entire argument on.

  • 57 Justin Sane // May 21, 2010 at 6:48 pm

    If a “private” business in Paul’s utopian society deferred access to these resources. In other words had their own well for water; supplied their own electricity outside of the public grid; did not have access to the fire, police or sheriffs department; does not have the roads that lead to their business built and maintained by the government…this is a short list, I’m sure y’all can come up with others. Then I’m fine with them discriminating against anyone they want to in their “private” backwoods shanty.

    I just hope the health department doesn’t come by for a visit. Ooops! I guess they wouldn’t be allowed to come by to protect the public health either. Hope you like them burgers!

  • 58 Lisa Graas // May 22, 2010 at 3:03 am

    I am a Republican……..not of the “Dixiecrat convert” persuasion, either. A real Republican……….and it’s no secret that I would welcome the bringing down of the Paul campaign. Admittedly, it is incredibly hard for me to see it being done by liberals………but so be it. It’s got to be done. My sincere hope is that it can be done on this particular issue. I have been fighting this battle throughout the primary, as Jake knows. Okay, so it’s been primarily in the context of the pro-life argument. Sue me. But we agree that Rand Paul has major issues with the Fourteenth Amendment as a whole………..right? It explains his misunderstanding about the Gitmo issue. I disagree with President Obama that the prisoners should be brought onto American soil………but hey, I agree with him that if they are on American soil, they have the right to due process. Mitch would agree, too, I’m sure………..because he’s a Republican and we “get that” the same as the President does. Rand Paul? He doesn’t seem to get that! He’s all over the place on that issue, I think because he’s simply against the Fourteenth Amendment. I’m pretty sure, for instance, that this is why he wasn’t endorsed by the NRA…..because they have filed court briefs saying that the Fourteenth ensures that the right to bear arms is an “individual right”. I wonder, is this why he’s so cozy with militias? Because hey, it seems fathomable that he might be opposed to an “individual” right because of his opposition to the 14th. I know liberals would argue against me on these points, but I’m trying to explain why a conservative Republican shouldn’t support Rand Paul……….and it’s the same reason a liberal Democrat shouldn’t support Rand Paul. It’s the Fourteenth Amendment. I love it. You love it. Rand doesn’t love it.

  • 59 Lisa Graas // May 22, 2010 at 3:14 am

    Correction: It was not fair for me to say “as a whole”. I should have said it’s clear he has a problem with Section 1……….but many in his base attack the amendment in its entirety.

  • 60 betty withers // May 22, 2010 at 11:47 am

    I do not wish to associate with people who think like Rand Paul or have my children associat e with people like me. I am sure he would up hold our rights to exclude people like him from businesses, private schools, etc., Lets get started.

  • 61 Timi Burke // May 22, 2010 at 12:26 pm

    The right to freedom of association stops once you leave your front door. It doesn’t matter how “privately-owned” a business is — if you open your doors to the public, that’s it, you cannot discriminate anymore.

  • 62 Doc // May 22, 2010 at 9:55 pm

    Hence the term “Public Accomodation.” In the scope of a few short hours he bashed minorities, the disabled, the aged, and the poor over his Civil Rights, ADA, and Fair Housing comments.

    Would you ever imagine a state GOP telling a US Senate candidate to STFU?

    You broke it Rand Paul. You own it. For the sake of the Commonwealth…resign!

  • 63 Lalameda // May 23, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    How many times did Rand Paul excoriate The South for being racist? I recall at least three times he laid that out. He also used the open carry analogy in a way that indicates he opposes open carry. So, I’m curious. Are there any Southern Tea Partiers scratching their heads, or has it not registered?

  • 64 Ken Moellman // May 23, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    Personally, I’m just sick of my party’s name and philosophy being drug into this race. Rand Paul is not a Libertarian, or a libertarian. http://www.LPKY.org/node/159 and http://www.LPKY.org/node/162

    He is not a Libertarian.
    He is not a libertarian.

    More to come on this…

  • 65 jake // May 23, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    Ken: Thank you for chiming in.

    Please keep us up-to-date if your Party decides to make future comment.

  • 66 Michael // May 23, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    Freedom of association is like freedom of speech. It’s a right, regardless of whether you agree with what they say or who they associate with. If a organization or business is bigoted then I boycott it, just like I am boycotting Arizona and France.

  • 67 Steve Magruder // May 23, 2010 at 5:58 pm

    Except that nobody business has a right under U.S. law to exclude customers based on race. That is outside freedom of association.

  • 68 Steve Magruder // May 23, 2010 at 5:59 pm

    nobody business -> no business